Filed 9/27/96

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND MICHAEL PRICE,

Plaintiff-AppellantCross-Appellee,
v.
REMINGTON PARK INC., an
Oklahoma corporation,

Nos. 95-6296
95-6306
95-6307
(D.C. No. CIV-94-806-T)
(W.D. Okla. )

Defendant-AppelleeCross-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, ALDISERT, ** and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. ***

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court

of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

**

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. These cases are
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
***

Plaintiff Raymond Michael Price, who worked for defendant Remington

Park, Inc. as a jockeys valet, brought suit alleging discriminatory discharge and
retaliatory discharge, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The jury
rendered a verdict in favor of defendant on the discriminatory discharge claim and
a verdict in favor of plaintiff on the retaliatory discharge claim, awarding plaintiff
$100 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the
district court granted defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL)
as to the punitive damages and set those aside. The district court also denied
plaintiffs motion for reinstatement. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for
attorney fees, to which defendant objected. The district court determined that
plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable fee, but reduced the amount awarded to
approximately half the amount requested, based on the result obtained. R. Vol.
I at 137.
Plaintiff now appeals the district courts grant of JMOL on punitive
damages, its denial of reinstatement, and its reduction of the attorney fee award.
Defendant cross-appeals the fee award, arguing that plaintiff recovered only
nominal damages and, therefore, is not entitled to any fee, citing Farrar v. Hobby,
506 U.S. 103, 115 (1992). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for
further proceedings.

-2-

I. Punitive Damages
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides that a court may enter
judgment as a matter of law on an issue when there is no legally sufficient
evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for th[e] party on that issue. The
district court granted defendants motion for JMOL on punitive damages after
concluding that [n]o evidence establishing the level of misconduct by the
defendant necessary to support punitive damages was introduced. R. Vol. I at
131. We review the district courts decision de novo. Sheets v. Salt Lake
County, 45 F.3d 1383, 1387 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 74 (1995).
In deciding whether to [enter judgment as a matter of law], the trial
court must view the evidence most favorably to the party against
whom the motion is made, and give that party the benefit of all
reasonable inferences. The court may not weigh the evidence or pass
upon the witnesses credibility, or substitute its judgment for that of
the jury.
Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 734 F.2d 495, 498 (10th Cir.
1984)(citations omitted).
The jury in this case was instructed that it could award plaintiff punitive
damages if it found that the act or omission of the defendant which proximately
caused damages to the plaintiff was done with malice or with reckless
indifference to the plaintiffs federally protected rights. R. Vol. I at 26. The
jury was instructed further that [a]n act or a failure to act is maliciously done if
prompted or accompanied by ill will, or spite, or grudge, either toward the injured
-3-

person individually, or toward all persons in one or more groups or categories of

which the injured person is a member, and that [a]n act or failure to act is
recklessly done if done in wanton or callous disregard of, or indifference to,
anothers rights. Id. at 26-27. Neither party contests the instructions given to
the jury on the legal standards for awarding punitive damages here.
We have reviewed the evidence carefully and, while it was greatly
conflicting, we conclude that, when construed in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, the evidence provides a legally sufficient basis for the award of punitive
damages. Therefore, the district court erred in granting defendants motion for
JMOL. On remand, the court should reinstate the jurys award of punitive
damages and enter judgment thereon.

II. Reinstatement
A district court has considerable discretion in formulating remedies for
Title VII violations, Carter v. Sedgwick County, 36 F.3d 952, 957 (10th Cir.
1994), one of which is reinstatement of the employee, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g).
The award of equitable relief by way of reinstatement rests in the discretion of
the trial court and this determination will not be set aside unless we are satisfied
that it is clearly erroneous. Bingman v. Natkin & Co., 937 F.2d 553, 558 (10th
Cir. 1991). Although we have held that reinstatement is the preferred remedy in
-4-

cases of employment discrimination, e.g., EEOC v. Prudential Fed. Sav. & Loan
Assn, 763 F.2d 1166, 1172 (10th Cir.)(ADEA case), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946
(1985), we have also recognized that special circumstances may exist that make
reinstatement inappropriate, e.g., Anderson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 861 F.2d
631, 638 (10th Cir. 1988). One such circumstance is extreme hostility in the
workplace. Id. Here, the district court determined that reinstatement would not
be appropriate because of the repeated and continuing hostility and antagonism
that existed between the plaintiff and others in the work place, a significant part
of which was caused by plaintiffs argumentative and confrontational behavior.
R. Vol. I at 129. Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff reinstatement.

III. Attorney Fees

The district court determined that, having prevailed on his retaliatory
discharge claim, plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable fee award. The court
further determined, however, that plaintiff could not recoup fees incurred with
respect to the prosecution of his discriminatory discharge claim, on which he did
not prevail. Id. at 133. The court then ordered plaintiff to identify that portion of
his fee request that related to the retaliatory discharge claim. Plaintiff, in turn,
responded that he could not separate attorney time spent on the discriminatory
-5-

discharge claim from time spent on the retaliatory discharge claim, because both
claims arose out of a common core of facts and involved related legal theories,
id. at 90, and [m]uch of counsels time was devoted generally to the litigation as
a whole, id. at 94 (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983)).
Without further explanation of its rationale, the district court determined that a
reduction of the lodestar is necessitated by the result obtained, and that an
appropriate award is the amount of $15,000.00. R. Vol. I at 137. This amount
was approximately half that requested.
[T]he district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee
award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. It remains important, however, for the
district court to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee
award. Id. District courts should articulate specific reasons for fee awards to
give us an adequate basis for review. Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 552 (10th
Cir. 1983). The district court need not, however, identify and justify each
disallowed hour or announce what hours are permitted for each legal task.
Mares v. Credit Bureau of Raton, 801 F.2d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 1986).
We recently held that, in making adjustments to the lodestar to reflect a
partys overall success, the district court must make a qualitative assessment to
determine what less-than-perfect results are excellent, justifying full recovery,
or to what extent plaintiff[s] limited success should effect a reduction in the
-6-

lodestar. Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1511 (10th Cir. 1995)(quoting

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 436). As in Bangerter, [g]iven the coincidental
correlation between the ratio of successful to unsuccessful claims and the
percentage by which the district court reduced the lodestar, it is not clear that the
district court here assess[ed] the relative importance of plaintiff[s] successes
and failures. Id.
Our reversal of the district courts ruling on punitive damages not only puts
to rest defendants argument that plaintiff is not entitled to any fee award, but
also changes the assessment of plaintiffs overall success. Therefore, we must
remand the issue of attorney fees to the district court for reevaluation. On
remand, the district court should demonstrate on the record its assessment of the
losses in light of the time necessarily devoted to the litigation as a whole and the
general overall success of plaintiff[]. Id.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for
further proceedings.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge

-7-